Time for an Oxford Union Debate: “The Tobacco Control Industry Is Corrupt”

Over the last several years, the corruption of The Tobacco Control Industry has become more and more obvious. Even many Public Health Experts, such as Siegel, Phillips, Bates, and many, many others have said so. There are hundreds of them, who are themselves believers in the miasma effect of tobacco smoke, but are appalled by the intolerance. And yet they find it extremely difficult to declare that Big Pharma has taken over TC for its own commercial purposes. Perhaps they are afraid of being sued or sacked, or both. Or perhaps they do not have the evidence.

That is the reason that an ‘Oxford Union Debate’ is required. In those circumstances, generally speaking, in such debates, debaters can say what they want. That is the nature of such debates. People can say what they think might be happening, and can try to convince the members of the debating society that what they say is true. At the end, there is a vote, which indicates to what extent the members agree or disagree with the proposal. As far as I know, in such a debate at the Oxford Union, no speaker has ever been sued for slander.

====

The reason that I suggest that an ‘Oxford Union Debate’ is required is because of this stuff from the Guardian:

“Row over Marlboro-funded research that undermined plain cigarette packs”

What actually happened was that two eminent statistical professors undertook the task, funded by Philip Morris, to examine the statistics about PP in Australia. Get that? Not the epidemiology, but the statistics. The statistics that they used were those produced by a reputable and well-known Market Research Firm named Lee Morgan (?). The reason, they said, for using those data sets was that the number of participants was around 50,000, which is a very big sample – double some others.

The statistically expert Profs used an unusual method. They did not look for statistics which showed that Plain Packaging has had, or has not had, an effect over the first 13 months of the law’s existence. Rather, they looked for changes in patterns of consumption in a general sense.

What that means is that the effect of PP could be either to cut down smoking (especially among the young) or increase such smoking. In other words, the study was not ‘pointed’ only in one direction.

The statistical results were unequivocal.

In the first month after PP was introduced (Dec 2012), the statistics show that nothing happened, UNLESS you allow a sufficient margin of error, which COULD indicate a reduction in smoking – but only in the first month, if at all. Thereafter, the statistics showed nothing. Even a bigger margin of error did not produce any effect from PP on smoking prevalence after the first month.

====

The Guardian has distorted the whole thing. There is no row. Some gang called “OxyRomandie, a Swiss anti-smoking organisation”, without declaring their ‘expertise’, has chosen to throw brickbats at the statistical experts who did the study.

Obviously, The Guardian is just another partner in the “General Witch-hunt” partnership comprised of Public Health England, the MSM, most MPs, Cameron, Miliband and Clegg, the Tories, Labour and LibDems.